Professional Documents
Culture Documents
com
“There’s much talk in the type world nowadays pressed that attitude in a particular way. Accordingly, he organ-
about the Eight-Function or Whole Type Model, and my ized his general description of the types in terms of the atti-
name is sometimes brought up as a pioneer in this area. tudes, describing first “the peculiarities of the basic psychologi-
I appreciate this opportunity to establish the his- cal functions in the extraverted attitude” and then going on to
torical context of what I’ve contributed, and explain in “the peculiarities of the basic psychological functions in the
my own words what my innovations are.” introverted attitude.”
— John Beebe Jung started with extraverted thinking and extraverted
feeling (which he called “the extraverted rational types”) and
extraverted sensation and extraverted intuition (“the extra-
Historical background– verted irrational types”), before turning to the introverted types:
introverted thinking and introverted feeling (“introverted ra-
Jung’s eight functions tional types”), and introverted sensation and introverted intui-
tion (“introverted irrational types”). These were the eight func-
tions in Jung’s original description.
Winter 2008 • 9
© 2008 C.G. Jung Society of Atlanta
www.jungatlanta.com
see our own shadow, but in my case I began to identify typi- Senex/Witch, Trickster, and Demonic Personality—and the
cal, shadowy ways in which I would use the four functions function-attitudes they carried for me—introverted intuition,
that lie in the shadow of my more differentiated quartet of extraverted thinking, introverted feeling, extraverted sensa-
individuated function-attitudes. My introverted intuition, tion—were all what a psychologist would call ego-dystonic.
shadow in attitude to my superior extraverted intuition, has That is, they were incompatible with my conscious ego or
decidedly oppositional traits: it expresses itself in ways I could sense of “I-ness”—what I normally own as part of “me” and
variously describe as avoidant, passive-aggressive, paranoid “my” values. Nevertheless, they were part of my total func-
and seductive, in all cases taking up a stance that is anathema tioning as a person, uncomfortable as it made me to recognize
to the way my superior extraverted intuition wants me to the fact.
behave. I decided to call the archetype carrying this bag of In this way, using myself as an example, and my years of
oppositional behaviors the Opposing Personality. Jungian analysis as a laboratory, I eventually came to identify
Similarly, my fatherly introverted thinking, a patient eight discrete archetypes guiding the way the eight function-
teacher of complex ideas, was shadowed by a dogmatic, don- attitudes are expressed within a single, individual psyche
nish extraverted thinking that didn’t listen, or even care about (Beebe 2004).
others’ ideas. I decided to call this rather pompous, unrelated Although, for convenience of reference, and out of re-
figure my Senex, using James Hillman’s (1967/1979) choice spect for the traditional numbering of the functions, I am in
of name for an archetype that is coldly, arrogantly, judg- the habit of assigning numbers to the function-attitude
mental, in an old-man-pulling-rank sort of way. (The Latin “positions” associated with these archetypes, I no longer view
word senex, root of our word “senator,” means “old man.”) the type profile of an individual as expressing a rigid hierarchy
Gradually I realized that women I knew had a similar of differentiation of the various functions of consciousness.
archetype carrying the shadow of their normally motherly Rather, I have come to regard the positions the types of
auxiliary function, and that this archetype displays many of function-attitude seem to occupy, when we construct a model
the “negative mother” characteristics I had learned to associate of them in our minds, in a much more qualitative light. It is as
with the Witch figure in European fairytales (von Franz 1972). if they form an interacting cast of characters through which
The shadow side of my eager-to-please but oh-so- the different functions may express themselves in the ongoing
vulnerable-to-the-feelings-of-others internal boy was the drama of self and shadow that is anyone’s lived psychological
Trickster, which in me, with its confident introverted feeling, life.
could reverse any expectation—to double-bind anybody who Although the actual casting of specific function-attitudes
tries to ride herd on the child. (As a little boy, to taunt my in the various roles will be governed by the individual’s type,
mother when she expected perfection of me, I actually used to the roles themselves seem to be found in everyone’s psyche.
draw the two-faced god Mercurius, although I did not yet Hence I regard them as archetypal complexes carrying the
know his mythological identity) (note 2). different functions, and I like to speak of them as typical
Finally, I began to see my extraverted sensation, the subpersonalities found in all of us.
shadow side of my Anima introverted sensation, as a Demonic I have spent many years verifying this scheme. Through
Personality that often operates as an undermining oaf, a observation of clients and others whose types and complexes I
beastly part of myself that nevertheless can occasionally be an have gotten to know well, and through the analysis of films by
uncanny source for the infusion of redemptive spirit into my master filmmakers in which archetypes and function-attitudes
dealings with myself and others (note 3). are clearly delineated, I have concluded that the relationships
The four archetypes of shadow—Opposing Personality, between these archetypes and the scheme of differentiation
T his model of the archetypal complexes that carry the Haas 2005, Introduction to type and the 8 Jungian
eight functions of consciousness is my present instru- functions, Mountain View, CA: CPP.
ment for the exploration of type in myself and others. James Hillman 1979 (1967), ‘Senex and Puer’, in J
Hillman (editor), Puer papers, Dallas, TX: Spring, pp
It enables me to see, in just about any interaction, what con- 3-53.
sciousness (that is, which function-attitude) I am using at that C G Jung 1971 (1921), Psychological types (The col-
given time. lected works of C G Jung, volume 6), London:
More importantly, the model allows me to see what Routledge. C G Jung 1959 (1954), ‘On the psychol-
position that function-attitude inhabits, and thereby I am ogy of the Trickster figure’, in The arche-types of the
pointed to watch for the archetypal ways in which, as a conse- collective unconscious (The collected works of C G
quence of being in that position, that particular consciousness Jung, volume 9), London: Routledge, pp 255-272.
C G Jung 1967 (1948), ‘The spirit mercurius’, in Alchemi-
expresses itself. cal studies (The collected works of C G Jung, volume
I am grateful that this model is leading present-day type 13), London: Routledge, pp 191-250.
assessors to take a second look at C G Jung’s foundational Emma Jung 1957, ‘On the nature of the Animus’, in
eight-function description of the types. Animus and Anima, New York: Spring.
My hope is that their increasing comfort with a total Isabel Briggs Myers, with Peter Myers 1995 (1980), Gifts
eight-function, rather than a preferred four-function, model differing: Understanding personality type. Palo Alto,
CA: Davies-Black.
will enable them to begin to recognize the extraordinary role
Henry L Thompson 1996, Jung’s function-attitudes
possibilities that emerge, both for good and for ill, as these explained, Watkinsville, GA: Wormhole.
consciousnesses differentiate themselves in the course of Marie-Louise von Franz 1970, The problem of the Puer
personal development. Aeternus, New York: Spring.
Marie-Louise von Franz 1971, ‘The inferior function’, in
M L von Franz and James Hillman, Lectures in
Jung’s typology, Zurich: Spring.
Note 2
In choosing the name Trickster for this side of my shadow, I drew Marie-Louise von Franz 1972, Problems of the Feminine
upon Jung’s classic delineations of the Trickster archetype (Jung in fairytales, New York: Spring.
1948/1967; Jung 1954/1959).
This article was first published in TypeFace 16:2
Note 3 (Summer 2005), and later in March 2006 issue of the
As with the Opposing Personality, the term Demonic Personality is my Australian Psychological Type Review. It is reprinted
own creation. In developing my model I deliberately left these terms here by permission of John Beebe, the British APT, and
large and vague to convey the vast stretches of personality territory the Australian Psychological Type Review.
involved in these dark and largely unexplored areas of myself where
my shadow typology expresses itself as character pathology. Text and diagrams © 2005 John Beebe MD, 337 Spruce
St, San Francisco, CA 94118, USA
Winter 2008 • 13
© 2008 C.G. Jung Society of Atlanta